Tax (Developing Countries)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger.

I am pleased to speak in this debate on the report on tax in developing countries published by the Select Committee on International Development. It is difficult for us to lecture other countries when we do not have our own house in order. I am pleased that the Chancellor is considering how he might tax companies that are not paying their fair share of tax here because, like developing countries, we need tax to address our deficit if we are to continue—and we will continue—to fund international development and many other things. I will be pleased when the Chancellor of the Exchequer returns to tell the House of Commons exactly how he will do that, because it is important. I completely support my two colleagues who spoke before me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

I will focus on the part of the report on the role of the extractive industries transparency initiative, which was mentioned by both my colleagues. I am particularly interested in that topic, on which I have tabled written parliamentary questions, and next month I will be visiting a coal mine in South Africa with the Industry and Parliament Trust. I was going to go to a diamond mine, but I have been downgraded, although there will be no problem with free gifts at the end of the visit.

I currently chair the extractive industries transparency initiative group, which is currently an informal body, but I am hoping for it to become an all-party group very shortly as I have just found a final member. At a meeting of the group before Christmas, our guest speaker was the chair of the EITI, the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Clare Short, who provided a valuable insight into the EITI’s worthwhile work.

The establishment of the EITI was a massive step forward, and I pay tribute to the previous Labour Government for taking the lead in founding the initiative. The underlying principle of the EITI is that Governments disclose the amounts they receive from corporations in the extractive sectors, including payments of taxes, signature bonuses and royalties, and corporations operating in participating countries make a corresponding disclosure of the payments they make to the respective Governments. An EITI report for the relevant country is then published, reconciling the amounts paid by corporations with the amounts received by the Government. Any discrepancy between the two amounts may indicate that revenues are falling into the hands of corrupt officials, which is not unusual in many of the countries we talk about in the international development sector. The methods used are an extremely effective way of identifying possible corruption, and ensuring that the two figures correspond is one way in which people in participating countries are able to call their Governments to account.

There are two stages of EITI accreditation: EITI candidate status and EITI-compliant status. There are 14 countries with compliant status, although one of those, Yemen, is currently suspended, and 21 countries with candidate status.

The EITI has a robust yet flexible methodology—the EITI standard—that ensures a global standard is maintained throughout the implementing countries. The EITI board and international secretariat are the guardians of that methodology. Implementation, however, is the responsibility of individual countries. The EITI standard, in a nutshell, is a globally developed standard that promotes revenue transparency at local level. The EITI rules establish the methodology that countries must follow to become fully compliant with the EITI.

As much as I am a big supporter of the EITI, however, I believe that more than a decade since its establishment—and a productive first decade it has been—the EITI needs to go further in its transparency work. As the report advocates in its recommendations, the time has come for the EITI to publish contracts between mining companies and Governments. The “Publish What You Pay” campaign suggests that such publication would help to expose any contracts that are patently disadvantageous to the country concerned. We only have to look at many countries in Africa to realise that they are mineral-rich, but money is not going back into those countries for Governments to invest for the benefit of their people, not just the higher echelons in society. It is important that such publication goes ahead.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making a valuable contribution with her important speech, but does she acknowledge that, prior to the emergence of the EITI, we had situations, such as in Angola, where BP, to its credit, wanted to publish information on the taxes it paid and was basically told by the corrupt Minister who was pocketing those taxes that if BP did so, it would be thrown out of the country and not be allowed to continue its activities? The EITI has done an awful lot to prevent such things, thereby exposing those countries and Governments who will not sign up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Some companies do want to do the right thing by publishing information so that people in those countries know how much money is going to the Government that could be invested in health, education, women’s rights and the whole gamut of things that we try to promote through our international development money. It is important that EITI goes further.

The thing that disappoints me, and has obviously disappointed my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, is that although we were the founders of the EITI, we are not a member. The report states:

“If the Government genuinely hopes to encourage more developing countries to sign up for EITI, it must be willing to lead by example.”

As with the tax we are not collecting, we must sign up to the initiative.

Recommendation 11 suggests that the UK should become a member and that the EITI should request the publication of contracts. The Department for International Development has responded by saying it “partially agrees,” and I am therefore partially pleased, but I urge the Government to re-examine their position on that recommendation. Rather like the tax that the Chancellor has not been collecting from companies in this country, we must lead by example by getting our own house in order before we tell anyone else how to run their country—not that we should be telling other people how to run their country. We should assist countries by giving them best practice, which is an important point for Britain to lead in the world.

I hope the report will make a real difference to the economies of developing countries, because it is one of the most important reports since I became a member of the Committee.

HIV (Developing Countries)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bayley, because this debate is probably of more interest to you than many debates you have to chair, given your membership of the Select Committee on International Development.

I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this important debate on the rights, risks to and health of HIV patients in developing countries. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), for attending, and I hope she has fully recovered from her recent illness. Before I start—as this would not be appropriate at the end—I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law, chaired by the former President of Brazil, recently published a report the findings of which are the reason why I wanted to secure this debate. If there is just one point that I want everyone to take away with them today, it is this quote from the commission’s chairman:

“The end of the global AIDS epidemic is within our reach.”

We have the unprecedented opportunity of a generation to have a world where no one dies of AIDS-related illnesses or newly acquires HIV. It is now a realistic ambition to imagine an HIV-free generation.

Some three decades ago, the HIV epidemic was first discovered. Since then, 30 million have died of AIDS, and 34 million more have been infected with HIV. The epidemic became one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. However, as the report makes clear, the crisis is also one of law, human rights and social justice. We are now fortunate enough to live in an age where we have all the research and tools to slow radically the rate of new HIV infections and stop HIV-related deaths, but the AIDS epidemic is not over. This time, it is not nature that is getting in our way of achieving success; this time, we are the problem. Bad laws, political obstacles and straightforward discrimination are preventing us from combating one of the greatest challenges ever to face humankind. We, as members of the human race, are standing in the way of ourselves.

Before I go on, it is important to praise United Kingdom Governments over the past 30 years—Conservative, Labour and now the coalition—for their work and for being global leaders in the response to HIV for much of the past 30 years. Tribute should be paid to Lord Fowler, who, as Health Secretary, opened up the discussion about HIV/AIDS at a time when many hesitated to speak its name, and initiated the striking “tombstone” adverts to alert the public to the nature of the new and dangerous disease. That is something the British people should feel proud of and that should continue, as I am sure we all agree. Perhaps we are ready again for a public health awareness campaign.

As many Members present will be aware, I undertake a lot of work on international development, and an issue that almost always arises in developing countries is gender inequality. Women and girls account for half the people living with HIV in the world. In Africa, the rate is even higher. Poverty repeatedly features, as almost all women with HIV—98%—live in developing countries. Why are women so vulnerable to HIV there? Their vulnerability can partly be put down to biological reasons, but the real reason is the gender inequality and discrimination enshrined in the customs and law and sexual and domestic violence that rob women of power. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women found that the majority of sexually active girls in developing countries aged 15 to 19 are married, often to much older men, and such married adolescents tend to have higher rates of HIV infection than their peers.

Sexual violence is the accomplice of HIV, depriving women of their ability to control their lives and thereby protect their health. In 2005, a World Health Organisation study found that in a broad range of settings, men who were violent towards their female partners were also more likely to have multiple partners, with both violence and infidelity being expressions of male privilege. I have previously spoken in this Chamber about rape being used as a tool of war. Increasingly, it is a weapon to break the spirits of women and girls, because, as the global commission’s report rightly points out, it destroys what holds people together—a community.

Disclosure of positive HIV status puts women at risk and in fear of more violence. I recently visited Pakistan, and when I returned home, I read about a Pakistani woman who had been gang-raped. She later discovered that she was both pregnant and HIV-positive. Her husband then abandoned her and her children. The commission’s report cites an example that demonstrates that education and class do not necessarily insulate women from such outcomes. It describes how a Tanzanian woman who led a middle-class life and was happily married to a professional man was affected. When she told him of her positive status, he was furious and started blaming her for their sons’ illnesses. He exposed her to stigma and torture, expelling her from the matrimonial home that she had paid for with her own money. The divorce courts did nothing to uphold her rights or to help her children.

We know that many women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo suffer rape, often in front of their husbands and children, who are then murdered in front of them. As a result, the women are frequently victims of HIV/AIDS, and they have few places to go for help. Antiretroviral drugs are much more difficult to obtain, administer and take consistently in such a chaotic place.

I welcome the commitment of the Department for International Development to putting women and girls at the centre of its work in the developing world. However, the Government have to urge other Governments, particularly at the G8 next year, to adopt the same strategic priority in their international development policies.

Another issue is Governments such as Uganda’s wishing to introduce laws making gay sex illegal and punishable by the death penalty. Many Governments in Africa are intolerant of gay sex. If challenged by UK Members of Parliament such as the late David Cairns, their Ministers try to tell us that they are just continuing with the laws we left with them following independence. That is some 50 years ago, so it is absolutely no excuse. We have moved on in the past 50 years and so should they.

There was a debate in Westminster Hall about the brutal murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato. Since then, I have met a number of young gay men from African countries who are frightened for their lives. Such repressive laws must be outlawed, and it is up to our Ministers in the Foreign Office and DFID to stand up to Governments in countries where such laws are a problem.

Not only are the laws frightening gay men; they are a recipe for disaster in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Men will go underground; they will not see their doctor if they suspect they have HIV, because they are terrified they will be labelled as gay. They will not even want to collect drugs from a pharmacy for exactly the same reason.

A Bill has been tabled in Uganda—it is supposed to go through by the end of the year, so it is not long—proposing to expand the scope of criminalised activities and provide harsher punishments on conviction, including life imprisonment and, unless the clause in question is definitively removed, the death penalty for some offences. The Bill will force anyone who is aware of an offence under the Bill or an offender to report the offender within 24 hours, or be liable to a fine or three years’ imprisonment. There are indications that the clause might be dropped or amended, but if it remains the draconian provisions will punish any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to the authorities. They will face fines of 2,650 dollars or three years in prison. Any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the authorities within 24 hours will face the same penalties. That must not happen, and I call upon the Minister to try to do something to stop it.

As the global commission’s report states, children and young people have the most to lose from HIV. It also states that such children are far more likely to become poor or homeless, drop out of school, face discrimination and violence, see their opportunities dwindle, or grow ill and die long before their time. The research quoted in the report states that globally, there are 3.4 million children living with HIV, roughly 16.6 million of whom have lost one or both parents to AIDS, and millions more have been affected. Fewer babies are now born with HIV, thanks to an increase in programmes to prevent vertical transmission. However, less than one quarter of children who qualified for the standard antiretroviral therapy actually received it in 2010. Despite that treatment, 2,500 young people still acquire HIV every day.

Young people in developing countries are also affected if their parents become ill or die. That point is in many ways linked to the gender rights issues I raised earlier, as older children, especially girls, are often forced to leave school to care for the family if a parent dies. That becomes a vicious circle for girls, trapping them for life, meaning they cannot have a long enough education to become economically independent, and elevating their risk of being infected by HIV. We must ensure that when parents die, developing states are well enough equipped to provide children with human rights and to make sure that their legal interests are protected, and that they are being cared for by suitable people.

Then, there is the issue of discrimination against families living with HIV. Adults living with HIV may be denied rights to see their children. Agencies prohibit HIV-positive children from living with their parents in state-sponsored housing, and school and child care administrators shut the door to HIV-positive pupils, believing that they will infect others. For example, in Paraguay,

“People who suffer from chronic contagious disease”

are forbidden to marry or adopt. Challenging those legal obstacles is a particularly important role for non-governmental organisations. Gidnist, the Ukrainian legal aid NGO, challenged the Ukrainian court to protect the rights of an HIV-positive child who was denied access to the paternal home. Thanks to that legal action, the child’s access to his paternal home was restored.

Studies cited in the global commission’s report state that age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education, including information on HIV prevention, serves the health of young people. Those studies show that such programmes reduced sexual risk-taking. If we are serious about working towards an HIV-free generation, it is therefore vital that age-appropriate sex education be available in schools worldwide.

As I briefly mentioned, among the things that stand in our way are the laws and political thought in some developing countries. The global commission’s report makes it clear that HIV is not just a health issue. The report makes for sober reading, informed as it is by those at the sharp end of the making and breaking of HIV-related laws in more than 140 countries. The global commission heard from people living with HIV who are deprived of the medicines they need because of intellectual property laws that put the prices out of reach. Men who have sex with men, and female sex workers, told the commission of their harrowing experiences of arbitrary arrest and abuse by police. People who inject drugs spoke of their time in detention, when they were denied clean needles or substitution therapy to help them reduce the harms associated with their habit. The commission heard about the experiences of migrant workers expelled from countries with laws that ban the entry of, or deport, foreigners with HIV, and the experiences of HIV-positive citizens denied health care, schooling, employment or housing because of stigma and discrimination.

Many companies help their own work forces by providing antiretroviral drugs, antimalarial drugs and other drugs that families need, in order to keep a healthy work force. In Uganda, we saw people from Nile Breweries give such drugs not just to their own workers but to the farmers who provide the agriculture for them—I forget which plant they make beer from. However, they also provide condoms for sex workers. There are people out there trying to help, and they are not just from NGOs and Governments, but from companies. That is encouraging to hear.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very strong case, particularly with regard to the attitudes that must be overcome in order to address this issue. Does she agree that one answer clearly must be further integration of HIV systems—not a separation of HIV systems—within an integrated health systems approach, particularly in circumstances in which TB is the major killer of people with HIV? In view of those circumstances, does she agree that what we can do in this country is to ensure that the UK continues to take a leading role in addressing the replenishment issue with regard to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria?

[Pauline Latham]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I will come on to those points in a moment, but they are very important because we do need an integrated approach. It cannot be a stand-alone approach; it has to work together with other things.

The global commission’s findings clearly demonstrate that the myriad laws, across multiple legal systems, have one thing in common: by punishing those who have HIV or the practices that may leave them vulnerable to infection, they serve simply to drive people further away from disclosure, testing and treatment—fostering, not fighting, the global epidemic.

To quote Dr Shereen El Feki, the representative from Egypt on the global commission,

“It is time to say, ‘No more.’ Just as we need new science to help fight the viral epidemic, we need new thinking to combat an epidemic of bad laws that is undermining the precious gains made in HIV awareness, prevention and treatment over the past thirty years.”

I absolutely support her position. She argues, and I agree, that deliberate and malicious transmission of HIV is best prosecuted through existing laws on assault, homicide or bodily harm, rather than the special HIV criminal statutes that have sprung up in recent years and that sweep up those—pregnant women among them—to whom they should never apply.

In relation to pharmaceuticals, existing intellectual property laws require a complete overhaul to ensure that the interests of public health are balanced against incentives for innovation, and that the best new HIV medicines are available to all. Laws that criminalise sex work, drug use, same-sex relations or transgender identity do little to change behaviour aside from discouraging the people most at risk of infection from taking measures to protect themselves and their communities from HIV. Laws against gender-based violence and towards the economic empowerment of women are badly needed, and need to be enforced, to reduce women’s vulnerability to HIV. To work towards making an HIV-free generation a human reality, the world needs to take a joined-up, 21st-century approach to, as I said, one of the greatest public health challenges of our time.

Let me now discuss what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned in his intervention. Since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was created in 2002, it has saved an estimated 7 million lives, disbursed antiretroviral drugs to more than 3 million people, treated 8.6 million cases of TB and distributed 230 million insecticide-treated bed nets.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I must apologise to her and to you, Mr Bayley, because I must leave the debate early to attend the Energy Bill debate in the main Chamber, but I wanted to be here today to listen to the comments being made. The hon. Lady has made important points about children, access to medicines and the pharmaceutical industry. She will be aware that 72% of children living with HIV still lack access to the ARVs that they need. Does she agree that we need to see a greater commitment to treatment, care and support for those children and simpler drug formulations that are more suitable for younger people suffering from HIV? Does she recognise, like me, that without treatment 30% of children living with HIV will die before their first birthday and 50% before they reach the age of two?

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We need drugs to be regularly available at an affordable price, but many countries where the problem is rife are chaotic and often in conflict, so the drugs would not necessarily get to where they are needed.

We have a role to play with DFID, because we provide a lot of health strengthening in different countries, but we must ensure that the health strengthening in the Governments is true. Often a Government will take money out of the health system, because we have put it in. We must ensure that the systems we put money into to fight this huge epidemic are absolutely transparent. It is also important that drugs are age-related; a drug for a young child will not be the same as a drug for somebody in their 50s. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

The global fund is the largest international financier of the fight against the three diseases. It channels two-thirds of the international financing provided to fight TB and malaria and half of all antiretroviral drugs to people living with HIV and AIDS. It also funds the strengthening of health systems. Inadequate health systems are one of the main obstacles to scaling up interventions to secure better health outcomes for HIV, TB and malaria. In contrast to other multilateral institutions, the global fund has been ranked by DFID as performing very highly on transparency and accountability. However, 2011 was a difficult year for the global fund, as the cancellation of the round 11 funding caused great concern among non-governmental organisations delivering services through the fund in developing countries.

In 2012, the Select Committee on International Development, of which I have been a member since the 2010 general election, held a short inquiry into the global fund. It concluded that the UK Government should release the additional funding promised to the fund without delay. In the Government’s response to the inquiry, DFID unfortunately states that they will wait until after the second multilateral aid review, which is due to be published in spring 2013.

The global fund has gone through a huge transformational process, developing a new strategy and recently appointing a new executive director, Mark Dybul. It now has a new funding model. Due to financial constraints, however, the fund has withdrawn its programme from some middle-income countries, such as Ukraine, where the figures on the HIV epidemic are rising. Will the Minister look urgently at that?

On drugs, it is worth noting that approximately 80% of the 8 million people currently taking ARVs are prescribed generic versions. Competition in generic drugs has enabled the cost to be reduced at least tenfold to around $100 a year for first-line treatment. That was only possible due to India’s pre-2005 patent laws and protracted discussions with the pharmaceutical industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since India’s patent laws have become compliant with the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—it is not possible for Indian companies to make generic versions of newer medicines within the 20-year patent period. We are, therefore, reliant on the good will of pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices for poorer countries.

During 2012, it is estimated that about half a million people will need second and third-line treatment, which is patented and at least three times the price of first-line treatment. Third-line treatment is as much as 20 times the price. One initiative to deal with the cost of drugs is the medicines patent pool, which would enable free generic competition on newer patented medicines. Unfortunately, only one company—Gilead Sciences Inc—has signed up and more companies need to join for the system to be viable. Will the Minister comment on what she plans to do to help that happen?

As we move towards 2015, a lot of work is being undertaken to put together a post-millennium development goals framework. One risk we face as the MDGs come to an end is that the global community will turn its back on the gains made in the past decade. It is important to consider the linkages between HIV/AIDS and other diseases. A post-MDG framework must continue to work towards the unmet MDGs. There is an urgent need for continued action on HIV: each day more than 7,000 people are newly infected with HIV; and 7 million people are still in need of HIV treatment—a number set to increase dramatically as all 34 million people living with HIV will ultimately require it.

TB is the leading cause of death among people infected with HIV/AIDS in developing countries, and 1.1 million people were living with HIV-acquired TB in 2010. Because HIV infections attack and weaken the immune system, an HIV-positive person with latent TB is 20 to 40 times more likely to develop active TB than someone who is not infected with HIV. Promoting and implementing the linkages between HIV and other relevant areas—including gender, sexual and reproductive health, maternal and child health, TB, education, and hunger and nutrition—brings wider benefits for development. A post-2015 framework must therefore ensure that goals and targets support synergies between areas. In particular, it must ensure that addressing HIV is part and parcel of a coherent and holistic approach to strengthening overall health, social protection and legal systems. Will the Minister tell us what progress she hopes will be made at the G8 next year?

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, which echoes my intervention on the integration of services. Does she agree that it is a serious false economy if developing countries do not ensure that the drugs are delivered on the ground? The cost of treating drug-resistant strains of TB—such strains are an increasing problem—is much greater than the cost of investment on the front line to treat such cases in the first place.

[Pauline Latham]

My hon. Friend is right; if we cannot get the drugs out to the people, they will not do well, so systems need to be put in place. It is ironic that many African countries have appalling transport systems and yet organisations such as Nile Breweries, which makes beer, can get drugs to people, no matter how difficult it may be, because beer gets everywhere, whereas Governments do not always think it important to ensure that pharmacies and health clinics do not have stockouts. All African countries need to ensure that there is blanket coverage of such drugs and that there is never a shortage, because, as my hon. Friend mentioned, to do otherwise is a false economy. They need to work hard to move forward on prevention, because so many people are living with, and still dying from, HIV/AIDS.

I started by saying that the key point I wanted everyone to take away today is that the end of the global AIDS epidemic is within our reach. Working towards an HIV-free generation is now a possibility, but it will become a reality only if we have the will to make it a reality. I shall repeat what I said earlier: nature is not standing in our way; we, as members of the human race, are standing in our way. We must urge the Governments of the world to take a joined-up approach to combating HIV/AIDS.

I also started by praising the work of UK Governments over the past three decades. The UK has provided excellent political and financial support. It is clearly an example of best practice and has set the standard for others to follow. The UK Government will review their HIV programmes in 2013. I agree with the Stop AIDS Campaign, which urges that the 2013 review becomes a blueprint or strategy for the future of the UK’s global HIV work. It is a chance to demonstrate the UK’s continued leadership in the field.

The strategy would map the UK’s contribution to delivering the combination of game-changing interventions necessary to ensure that we reach the tipping point and have a generation in which no one dies of an AIDS-related illness or newly acquires HIV and in which the rights of all those living with or affected by HIV are upheld. I also agree with the Stop AIDS Campaign that the blueprint should include three key themes: first, commit to maintaining the UK’s investment in HIV/AIDS; secondly, commit to putting all people living with and affected by HIV at the centre of the response, regardless of where they live; and thirdly, commit to leading the way in the UK and globally.

It was a privilege to secure this debate and speak on this important issue. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank everyone who has attended and the various organisations that provided me with briefings ahead of the debate. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions and particularly the Minister’s response.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

International Development Committee Report (Afghanistan)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Sixth Report from the International Development Committee, on Afghanistan: Development progress and prospects after 2014, HC 403.

I am happy to accept interventions, while taking Mr Speaker’s restrictions into account.

It is worth recording that, since 2001, approximately $30 billion has been spent on development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and $243 billion on security. Our own Department for International Development has spent over £1 billion since 2001 and currently spends £178 million a year in Afghanistan.

Sadly, the report has been published on a day on which two more British service personnel have been killed. A total of 435 men and women from our forces have lost their lives in Afghanistan—along with thousands of Afghan people—to enable the country to reach its current position, and the main thrust of our report is that we must not abandon it now.

The Committee visited Afghanistan in June. We thank our adviser, Ashley Jackson—who is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute—and we commend the dedication of DFID’s staff, including those recruited locally, on their commitment in difficult and challenging circumstances.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall our visit to the hospital of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was doing incredible, innovative work with amputees who had been injured in land mine and other accidents. He will also recall the workshop next to the hospital, where false limbs were being manufactured. All the people working there were amputees, demonstrating very effectively the possibility of returning to work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a really good example of part-funding by DFID and that we should encourage the Department to increase its funding to ensure that more people are helped?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Contrary to what Members might think, our visit was truly inspirational in terms of what it told us about amputees’ recovery and recuperation. The Red Cross runs seven such centres throughout Afghanistan, and its valuable work is supported very effectively by DFID, but it could indeed benefit from further support.

Our main concern is that we cannot predetermine where Afghanistan will go after 2014. There will be elections, but we do not know who will be elected. There will also be security challenges. Threats to security and development potential will vary and may fluctuate across the country. We recommend that DFID’s engagement should be flexible according to the prevailing circumstances at any given time. That may mean acknowledging that delivering development assistance may be more achievable in some provinces than in others. There are provinces in which virtually no violence has occurred, but not all of them are receiving the aid and support that they need.

Afghanistan

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady will no doubt understand that a huge range of different activities are happening, and not just at national level—provincial and district plans are also in place. The district plans are very much locally driven, but we are providing assistance. As I have said, we are providing assistance at national level in Ministries to ensure that they are better placed in terms of their skills and capability to deliver at local level, but we need to see further progress. The Tokyo mutual accountability framework is the right one to enable us not only to agree what needs to be done, but to track it to ensure that it happens.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position. I am sure she welcomes the fact that the representation of women in the Afghan National Assembly is 27%—it is 22% in the UK House of Commons—but there is only one female governor in Afghanistan. In addition, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have met several Afghani women National Assembly Members who are concerned about their future, and who feel that they will go backwards when our support and troops come out. What will she do to ensure that they retain their position and that level of representation?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to flag up those understandable concerns. The NATO-led combat mission will come to an end by the end of 2014. One key outcome of the Chicago conference was that NATO now needs to consider post-2014 support. We need to ensure that the constitution, which enshrines women’s rights, works on the ground as well as on paper. That is incredibly important, and as I have said, I take a close personal interest in it.

Neglected Tropical Diseases

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I want to pursue some things that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, and to congratulate him on securing this debate on such an important subject. He dedicates a huge amount of his time to malaria and NTDs through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group.

As vice-chairman of the all-party groups on HIV and AIDS and on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I have been struck by the emerging evidence that patients suffering from some NTDs are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS or severe malaria. Dr Peter Hotez writes in his manuscript entitled “The neglected tropical diseases and the neglected infections of poverty: overview of their common features, global disease burden and distribution, new control tools, and prospects for disease elimination” that

“in the case of malaria there is a high degree of geographic overlap with hookworm infection…with evidence to show that co-infections of malaria and hookworm result in severe anemia…Similarly, urinary tract schistosomiasis, which occurs in more than 100 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa…commonly results in female genital schistosomiasis that is associated with a threefold increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS”.

In other words, if we are effectively to tackle the killers—malaria and HIV/AIDS—we need to treat NTDs at the same time. Given that, will the Minister ask the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to consider embracing NTDs as well? I appreciate that the fund currently faces financial difficulties, with the cancelation of round 11, but it would be a good start if it could acknowledge the importance of tackling NTDs in the fight against malaria and HIV/AIDS, and encourage its donors to support work on NTDs, just as the UK and the USA are doing.

I also emphasise that by tackling NTDs we are not only working with people to improve their health but helping them to pursue their livelihoods, to escape the very poverty that makes it much more likely that they will contract the diseases, which ensures that the millennium development goal of tackling poverty continues to elude many countries. Many NTDs, if untreated, result in chronic disability and, given that most people who suffer from them are likely to be involved in agriculture or manual labour, such disability severely affects their chances of earning a living.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on announcing a fivefold increase in UK support for the work in fighting NTDs. It meets DFID’s criterion for tackling poverty and, given the low cost of treatment and the 2 billion people affected in one way or another, it represents very good value for money.

Food Security and Famine Prevention (Africa)

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who has just spoken—on such a united debate.

As many Members have mentioned, smallholder farmers are one of the keys to food security, and therefore to poverty reduction and creating sustainable livelihoods. That in turn will lead to less aid being required, which must be the goal that we are looking for. However, corruption in many countries in Africa must be tackled, including the secret sales of mines, with the money going to tax havens and no directors’ names being available, which means that it cannot be tracked. Not enough emphasis has been put on agriculture in developing countries, but I believe that the world has woken up to the importance of the agricultural potential there.

A couple of months ago, I along with several colleagues went with the International Development Committee to Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi, three very different countries. Whereas Rwanda is investing in terracing, soil nutrition and irrigation, the DRC is in chaos, spending money on things that will not reduce the poverty of those who live there. Burundi has land that is extremely impoverished. The crops that we saw were extremely poor, and the farmers there need help to use fertilisers to aid crop intensity. The soil is so poor because of erosion and the lack of crop rotation. Each family in the village that we stayed in—or that most of us stayed in—grows its own food, but a more intensive project could help them to move from poverty to a higher standard of living by selling any excess, which unfortunately they currently do not have; indeed, they do not even have enough to feed themselves.

In Uganda, where I have been involved in an agricultural project, farmers are beginning to reap the rewards of working harder and working together. They now need a machine to grind the maize into flour so that the excess can go to the markets. In Kenya, an organisation called Free the Children works with schools and women to encourage them to have a kitchen garden for use in school kitchens and at home. Children are much more likely to attend school when their parents know that they will receive a meal—any meal, never mind a nutritious meal. At home, the parents can also provide a much more varied diet if helped to begin growing a diversity of fruit and vegetables. A well-fed child can learn better and is less likely to succumb to diseases; and if they become ill, they have more reserves to recover than some of the children we see all too frequently on television. Ghana has done well over the past two decades in stimulating its agriculture. We should encourage different countries in the continent of Africa to learn from each other about what works.

In India, the Select Committee saw a farmer who had moved away from the traditional subsistence crops to grow chillies. His income had improved tenfold and he was an extremely happy man because he could afford to send his children to school.

Much of what needs to be done is simple and straightforward—for example, building rural roads, funding agricultural research, ensuring that rural people have access to clean water. Other things, such as finding effective ways to stimulate rural financial systems or to conserve soil and water, require trial and error to find effective solutions in local circumstances. It follows that those efforts need to be sustained, allowing enough time for promising developments to become embedded before switching attention and funding to some other issue.

Women make up the majority of smallholder farmers, on top of all the other jobs they do, and we know that when women earn the money, they spend 90% of it on the family—in comparison with men who spend 40% or less, as they do not see the family as being so important. As in all countries, women are more concerned with the welfare of the family, so they spend on health, education and nutrition.

In order to increase their production and therefore their incomes, smallholder farmers need access to affordable inputs, like seeds and fertilisers, and to technology, credit and advice. With climate change affecting so much of the African continent, they must also have access to drought-resistant varieties and crops with higher nutrition; they need to be shown how drip irrigation goes specifically to the roots of plants so that they do not spray water on to soil that does not need it.

The UK is committed to spending £1.1 billion over the three years since the L’Aquila summit, but we are not delivering, so I call on the Minister with responsibility for Africa to step up the finance in all areas to provide better opportunities for these countries. The Department for International Development has the opportunity massively to increase its funding to food security and agricultural development when it increases its aid budget by £1.3 billion in 2013.

When there is a crisis like the one that we see in east Africa, flying humanitarian aid in in the form of food is so costly that it makes perfect sense to invest in helping people to become self-sufficient before the next drought and famine, but African countries need to do their bit as well. They are committed to spend at least 10% of their budgets on agriculture, but that is happening only in seven countries—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

Future of CDC

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Is it not true that CDC could help not only with productivity and increasing yield, but by working with farmers with very small plots of land to enable them to join together as a co-operative, because that would give them a greater income overall? When the Committee went to India, we saw a diversity of products compared with the sorts of crops grown in Burundi, Rwanda and, indeed, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It would be better if people could diversify and have larger plots so that they can make more money, which would come back to CDC and benefit all those incredibly poor people we saw when we stayed in Burundi.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I certainly agree that we want a partnership that looks at the best way of optimising and maximising production from which the community can benefit. I know that the Government have said that they are unwilling to direct CDC into particular sectors, but I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate that he will also not be telling it not to go into particular sectors. I hope that the Government will listen to the Committee’s view that CDC should try to explore such an area because that approach would give it an expertise that would be beneficial and could be replicated elsewhere.

Although today might not be the appropriate time for the Secretary of State to comment on this, he will be aware of the engagement that we have all had in our development programme in India. He has set a target of 50% for the level of Indian overseas development assistance going into private sector development by the end of 2014-15. For absolute clarity, I should say that the Committee did not dissent from that as a principle, but we were concerned about whether the mechanisms existed, or would exist, to achieve that figure. It will be interesting to see the role of CDC and equivalent partners in relation to that, particularly because the Government of India have made it clear that they are not keen on the UK Government’s aid programme being used to subsidise private sector investment.

To return to the example I cited with regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, there were projects in the states that we went to—Bihar and Andhra Pradesh—that probably would yield a return, but are unable to attract investment because they are off the sexy horizon of where people want to invest in India. It is possible for the Secretary of State’s objectives to be achieved, but the revamped CDC and the equivalent model may have to be worked up to a point where that can deliver. That is not possible at present and, to be fair, the Secretary of State has not said that it should happen as of today. However, a lot needs to be done in the next three or four years if that is to be delivered.

I can summarise things with a slightly personal view. I have been Chair of the Committee for six years, including throughout the previous Parliament. As I have said before, the creation of DFID was a considerable achievement of which the previous Labour Government had every justification to be proud. I have no hesitation in saying that. However, after that length of time and with a new Government in office, it is also right and proper to review, reprioritise and reassess.

Until recently, DFID was not comfortable with the role of interacting with the private sector. What people in DFID do in development terms is brilliant and world class. Indeed, I am not criticising the people involved because they did what they were asked to do. However, whenever there was a discussion about private sector co-operation and partnership, there was a tendency to say, “Well, that’s what CDC does. We’ll park that and get on with our development job.” In future, there needs to be more of a mingling of the two. When one role is more risky, complicated and difficult, there is always a worry that it could compromise the other. I understand those concerns, but the relationship between the Department and CDC as it changes needs to be slightly more hands on. There needs to be more parallel working between CDC in country and DFID programmes in country, and a greater understanding about them between the two.

My final example about that comes from a briefing the Committee enjoyed—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) was there in Aberdeen—from the Wood Family Trust, which I hope will give evidence to us in the autumn on a different inquiry. The trust was engaged in a project in east Africa on making markets work for the poor. It is a private family foundation, and it started off by saying, “We’re going to give the money we’ve made”—predominately out of the oil and gas industry—“and put it into development in Africa, because that’s about putting something back. We’re business people and we’ll do the business thing.” Indeed, that was precisely what it was doing. However, it rapidly realised that it could not do what it wanted without being in partnership with the public sector. It is interesting to note that the public sector needs to partner the private sector and the reverse is also true. It is the working together that delivers the best results.

I commend to the Secretary of State the fact that, when the Committee is visiting any bilateral partner in the future, we are likely to get a briefing about what is happening between the development programme and CDC in that country. We have not had that in the past—CDC has almost been a different organisation.

I commend our report to hon. Members. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for attending the debate and, indeed, for his constructive response to the report. I look forward to him updating us because I am aware that since our report was published, things have moved on a bit with regard to initiatives to revamp and reinvigorate CDC. The Committee is very much looking forward to hearing about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I accept that point. If CDC wants to be a trailblazer and to encourage investment by others, there must be some way of framing its activities to enable some appropriate risks to be taken. That might involve a special innovation fund to identify potential investments, which could recognise that failure rates are greater with particular kinds of investments such as smaller businesses.

Although innovation journeys in business, technology and elsewhere may attract a large amount of investment, there are often only a small but significant number of successes, but they may generate new sectors. There must be discussion about the level of risk that CDC can take, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State were to reflect on some of those points and tell us whether particular efforts can be made to recognise that, for example, diaspora and smaller communities have a big role to play in those countries, but that there must be a way of enabling them to invest. The pool of investors is often smaller. Is there a way of pooling investments or collaborating to ensure that more targeted investment from those groups goes to developing countries? Those matters should be explored.

[Pauline Latham]

Is it not true that diaspora communities invest in and send money back to the communities that they came from, because they know those communities? Trying to get another organisation to co-ordinate how they spend their money might seem to them to be telling them how to spend that money. Would it not be better to leave them to form their own associations to help their own communities, because they often know many people in the area? They are better left to get on with funding in areas that they know and whose needs they know, instead of giving it to someone else to invest. If we are not careful, we might stop them investing at all.

[Rushanara Ali]

Diaspora communities may be interested in developing businesses that connect between, for example, the UK and Pakistan. They may need advice, support and technical assistance, and they sometimes need access to investment funds to start up a business. There may be areas where they can do that themselves, but my essential point is that opportunities are being missed. We do not want to duplicate or squeeze out direct investments to help families, but second and third-generation British citizens with links to their countries of origin are increasingly interested in investment in and support for business rather than direct support to family members. It is important that CDC looks at opportunities for such investment, which is different from the traditional support to families and friends because it involves putting money into businesses in their home country or city, or the area where they come from.

CDC’s business plan, which follows the various reports, including that of the International Development Committee and the Government response, is welcome, as is the general thrust of its focus on economic development, including its fund-to-fund focus, and on poverty alleviation, but we must look closely at where CDC goes next and how it implements the overall vision that it has set for itself, recognising the many issues that have been raised. Those issues include internal practices and how CDC is perceived by the public. Hon. Members have acknowledged that there are still concerns and reputational issues about how CDC is perceived to be using resources, remuneration packages, pay and so on, and how its money is spent. The public deserve the best value for money, as well as transparency and accountability, so that our investments create a genuine space for others to follow. In areas where CDC invests, it creates new opportunities for others to follow, and it acts as a trailblazer and a catalyst. That is the ethos that we all want CDC to achieve. We all want it to succeed.

I again commend the work of the International Development Committee and look forward to seeing CDC thrive and succeed in increasing investment in developing countries, in helping to reduce inequality through economic growth and in making its contribution to reducing poverty.

Aid Reviews

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Food security and agriculture are at the heart of many of the programmes that we operate in food-stressed areas. We are working increasingly closely with the World Food Programme, not only on the provision of emergency aid but on trying to enable food-insecure areas to change the way in which they secure their food so that it is sustainable in the long term. Very good work is being done in Karamoja, in northern Uganda, and we intend to intensify it.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that he would put more money into the development of democracy in 13 of the 16 countries that he listed. Elections have already taken place last year and this year, so we have missed the boat on those. Can we be certain that the programme will continue and that we will carry out intensive work with some of the countries that have not done as well as they might have in reducing corruption in the electoral process, not just during the four-year period that has been mentioned but, if necessary, for five or six years?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. Over the next four years, we will work intensively to try to boost freer and fairer elections. As I said in my statement, we shall be working in 13 countries, notably Zimbabwe. We have made it clear that if there is a proper route map towards freer and fairer elections in that country, we shall be able engage much more directly in development work there.

Zimbabwe

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am delighted to follow two people who have visited Zimbabwe pretty recently and who have guarded optimism about its future, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It is good to hear from people who have a lot of knowledge of what is happening now.

The attention of the global community has recently been drawn to the forthcoming referendum in Sudan, which in all likelihood will create a new country. However, while the international community looks towards Sudan, the problems faced by other African countries continue. That is particularly true of Zimbabwe.

There is a southern African proverb that states, “Don’t look where you fell, but where you stumbled.” When reviewing the recent tragedy seen in Zimbabwe, it is right that we should look to where the country stumbled, before we look at where it now lies. Disgruntled war veterans invaded a small number of farms in the run-up to 2000, because they were annoyed with Mugabe’s progress towards his promise to redistribute the land back to the people of Zimbabwe. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only were white South Africans chucked off the land by Mugabe, but many Zimbabweans lost their jobs. A few months later, Mugabe passed a law to make it legal to take land without compensation.

I believe that it was the violent events at that time that led to Mugabe’s legislation between 2002 and 2006 that entrenched his position. The media were stifled by the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Opposition were stifled by the Public Order and Security Act, the Criminal Law Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which worked together to curtail the activities of organisations that posed a threat to the President. Most worryingly, that legislation allowed police and persons assisting the police to use all necessary force to stop all unlawful gatherings. Finally, the Private Voluntary Organisations Act impinged on the freedom of domestic and international non-governmental organisations to carry out vital aid work, which led to many NGOs leaving the country.

Since 2000 we have seen the breadbasket of Africa turn into the basket case of Africa. The commercial farming sector and the economy have collapsed, even though Zimbabwe used to export produce all over the world, and to neighbouring countries, as well as feed all its people. It is a tragedy that that situation is not returning at the moment. The lack of food resulted in the spread of chronic poverty, with about 2 million Zimbabweans depending on food aid. At poverty’s highest point, more than 80% of the Zimbabwean population were living on less than $1 a day. With cholera, malaria and HIV/AIDS at the worst level of any country in Africa and on the rise, and with Zimbabwe’s infrastructure on a sharp decline, the country fell into dictatorial despair.

The Movement for Democratic Change has done well in fighting elections against the ZANU-PF Government, despite the unfair playing field and its internal split in 2005. The international community has condemned the Zimbabwean elections as undemocratic, and cited the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s bias in set-up and actions, and we must do more to entrench democracy in Zimbabwe, as we have heard today.

Zimbabwe stumbled in 2000, and for almost a decade it carried on falling. We must hold our hands up and admit that we and the rest of the international community did not do enough to stop it. Even the Zimbabweans’ closest ally, the President of South Africa, achieved very little via his quiet diplomacy.

Thankfully, Zimbabwe has had something of a bounce in recent years, and switching currency has meant goods returning to the shops and the economy making a slight but important step towards recovery. I even note that property prices in Harare are increasing, and many displaced Zimbabweans are returning home.

The global political agreement and the resulting Government of national unity represent a step in the right direction. Some critics have said that the GPA was badly drafted legislation, but the GNU was the only option that offered Zimbabwe a lifeline out of crippling economic and social poverty. The GNU have remained working and—if I may be so bold as to say so—stable for more than a year, and green shoots of recovery really are visible. Schools and hospitals are reopening, and the cholera epidemic that claimed more than 4,000 lives has been brought under some control. Government-led human rights abuses have dramatically reduced, and a new short-term economic recovery programme has been well supported by the international community and the Bretton Woods institutions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how Britain intends to support that programme, if indeed it intends to do so.

Despite continuing political trouble, including internal power struggles in both ZANU-PF and the MDC, and unemployment that is still at 80%, the creation of the GNU and the change in economic fortunes, although small steps to recovery, are indeed steps. Zimbabwe and the international community must now see what led Zimbabwe to stumble in the past, so that it does not fall again in the future. I am sure that the Department for International Development will play a central part in rebuilding Zimbabwe, and I should like to outline what I see as the key roles that it can play.

It is well documented that President Mugabe loathes Britain. He is documented as having said:

“we must dig a grave not just six feet but 12 feet and bury Mr Blair and the Union Jack”.

Despite his reluctance to accept help from the UK, I agree with DFID’s assessment that the formation of the GNU has changed the balance of risk and opportunity and justified a structured and incremental re-engagement with Zimbabwe. I am very happy that the UK continues to be one of the top three donors to Zimbabwe, having donated $89 million in overseas development assistance in 2008, but it is slightly concerning that that is a reduction of almost $5 million on the 2007 commitment, and that there has been a decrease of almost 10% in our commitments to overall donor aid since 2006. I hope that future donations from the UK to Zimbabwe will increase year on year until Zimbabwe’s crisis issues are dealt with. Increasing our commitments to Zimbabwe would demonstrate to its people that although we will not work with Mugabe, we have not forgotten them.

It is not how much money we spend, but how it is spent, that will make a difference. The Secretary of State has said that a lot since taking office. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09 the balance of DFID bilateral aid to Zimbabwe shifted. At the beginning of the period, most aid was delivered by NGOs, but at the end, most was delivered via multilaterals. The optimist in me hopes that that shift was made not out of choice but out of necessity, and that aid spending via NGOs has decreased as a percentage of bilateral aid because more and more NGOs have moved out of Zimbabwe. Will the Minister tell us whether that trend is likely to continue, or whether, as NGOs such as Voluntary Service Overseas, whose first staff will relocate at the end of this year, return to Zimbabwe, DFID will look to spend more via them? NGOs are often better able to access communities on the ground and spend money where it is really needed.

Although I recognise the importance of the co-ordination that multilaterals such as the UN offer, I agree with critics who cite inefficiencies at ground level. I hope that as NGOs move back into Zimbabwe, we will see the role of multilaterals change from humanitarian to crisis management to overall strategic country growth. It is not often that I agree with the TUC, but I concede that as Zimbabwe’s economy grows and the need for humanitarian relief declines, DFID should look to move away from humanitarian relief and towards core development-oriented interventions.

With that in mind, and with the NGO community returning to help to solve Zimbabwe’s humanitarian problems, will DFID consider future engagement with the private sector to help to develop the economy? The Secretary of State has on more than one occasion said that economic growth is the foundation of development. It is a major concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon mentioned, that an Act was passed by the President in March that requires white-owned companies with an asset value of more than $500,000 that want to invest in Zimbabwe to surrender 51% of their shareholdings to black Zimbabweans. That is not a great inducement for people to invest. Britain must take an active role in trying to repeal that Act, which was passed without consulting the GNU, because it creates a vacuum of foreign investment. Without that, Zimbabwe’s economy will inevitably falter. The British Government have a big challenge on their hands to promote investment in Zimbabwe to support the work of Britain, civil society and the international community.

At the moment the UK spends 43% of its aid on the provision of basic health programmes, which Zimbabwe desperately needs. I commend that spending and recognise that it has been crucial in the past decade, because the state’s finances could not cope with need. However, I hope that as the overall health of Zimbabwe increases, DFID will move away from health and towards other long-term aspects of development. I also hope that health spending will move from direct health aid to building the capacity of the Zimbabwean health system.

One of the two most important ways in which DFID can help with the redevelopment of Zimbabwe is helping to fund the land audit. The GNU Finance Minister has allocated $30 million for a future audit, but previous Zimbabwe Government land audit findings have not been released, and I am sceptical that without the international community’s involvement, the findings will be unfair. It is not for me to suggest what conditions the international community should impose on funding for the land audit, but as the DFID Minister at the time of the International Development Committee report stated, a land audit would be the first step towards reform, but it cannot be carried with the current President and his cronies blocking international efforts.

Finally, DFID has a role in developing the political system. I understand the view that the inclusive Zimbabwe Government is not yet the partner that we require to sustain a full development relationship. The global political agreement and the resulting GNU are steps in the right direction, but unfortunately, as Tsvangirai pointed out, things have not radically altered, and Mugabe continues to act without consulting other GNU members. As a result, I believe that DFID’s strategy on providing technical assistance and policy support will strengthen the political process in Zimbabwe. I hope that the desired outcome of political change will take place, but if the recent Act concerning white-owned businesses is anything to go by, we have some way to go, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon.

I also applaud the Department’s drive for the GNU to adopt policies in line with The Hague principles. Strengthening democracy in Zimbabwe is the key to getting Zimbabwe back on its feet, but I fear that President Mugabe will fight the changes all the way. In 2008 he was quoted in a paper as stating:

“We are not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?”

While the President remains in a position of power, I fear that Zimbabwe’s future will remain on the precipice. However, if the political institutions of Zimbabwe are strengthened, I hope that unrestricted democracy can flourish. If this is so, the UK and the international community can take greater strides towards building stronger, more long-term development policies in league with the truly democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe.

The problems of Zimbabwe are so varied and complex, and I shall finish where I started. Since 2008 Zimbabwe has started to pick itself up from where it fell. It is right that we should now take this opportunity to see why Zimbabwe fell in the first place, and ensure that the work carried out on behalf of the UK is channelled into programmes that will help to bring true democracy, a stable and diverse economy and, most importantly, a healthy and poverty-free society to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a long way to go, but I hope our actions can help get it there.

Global Poverty

Pauline Latham Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Sadly, I, like many other Members in the Chamber, have received letters and e-mails from constituents saying that we are going to be subjected to cuts in most departmental budgets, so we should also cut DFID’s aid budget. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that “charity begins at home, but it does not end there”, because I will be able to go back to my constituents to tell them that we have a duty in this relatively wealthy country to help others.

I know that this will upset many of those correspondents, but I am very pleased to see that the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State and his team understand the importance of the budget for developing countries. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the start that he has made in changing the priorities in his Department because, as many Members have said, we need to ensure that money is well spent. There is a lot of corruption and we must ensure that the money goes to the people whom it needs to help and does not just go into the pockets of some politicians. That is why I am particularly keen to see measures put in place that stop that money going astray.

We do have poverty here in Britain, but the poverty in developing countries is very different and we can make a difference. Even in these difficult times, 0.7% of our gross national income is not a huge sum, but it might save some lives and help countries to escape from the worst life expectancy rates and early deaths from disease. Places such as Africa have to deal with many illnesses, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. If we can help these places by providing the correct medicines at an affordable price and bed nets to save children from mosquito bites, which cause malaria, we will help with the population’s education. Children cannot go to school if they are ill; if they do not get an education, they cannot get a job; and the cycle is perpetuated. Much of Africa does have primary education but many children never go to secondary schools. Even if they do, girls may have to miss one week in four because they have no sanitary protection and have to stay at home. That cannot be right in 2010.

Aid money must be spent well, because we need to reduce the difference in the life expectancy of people in developing countries and that of ourselves—that is crucial to the well-being of these countries. I was one of those people who went on Project Umubano with the Secretary of State, and we saw so many things that impressed us. It is not that the people in these countries are stupid or unable to study; they have fantastic minds, but they do not always have the opportunities.

I have organised my own aid project in a small way in Uganda, so I have seen at first hand what direct aid can do to help communities. Such aid could be for an education project—we constructed one school and helped another to finish the building that included a hall, now called Derby hall, having been named after my constituency—or it could provide a water butt to collect water because there is none on site and people have to walk half a mile to collect it. We started a women’s co-operative using old British Singer hand-sewing machines to give AIDS widows the opportunity to learn to make school uniforms and to have an income, rather than live without money.

We are also helping farmers to start to become self-sufficient in growing crops. We give each farmer that has cleared 1 acre of ground 10 kilos of maize seeds to plant. At the end of the season, they give 10 kilos back, replant another 10 kilos for the next season and either sell or consume what is left. That is a highly sustainable way of getting farming off the ground. Those farmers should now be able to make money each season from their very fertile ground, which was previously underused because of a lack of leadership in the area. This year, we have given money to enable some farmers to start growing upland rice on the same principle.

That is just one of many thousands of private projects. The students I have taken out there and I have not changed poverty in Africa, but we have helped one small area of Uganda, and we hope to continue to do so. There are many thousands of projects in Britain helping countries throughout the developing world, and I suggest that we harness that tremendous enthusiasm and get them to work with us—rather like the big society idea and the fact that we are asking people out there what laws and regulations they want to see scrapped. Why not ask churches and schools that have their own projects, along with the many other volunteers, to tell us what has worked for them and whether any projects financed by outside aid have failed? That would give us a clearer insight into the matter. Big charities such as Oxfam do fantastic work, but they sometimes get carried away with what they are doing and do not see what is happening in small pockets of the country where the small groups of volunteers are working.

I should like my project to help in that way, by helping the coalition Government to come up with inventive ideas for helping people in Africa and elsewhere. We have the expertise out in Africa. My project in Uganda is in an area not far from Kampala—it is only two and a half hours’ drive away—yet most of the people there had never seen a white person before we started going out to them. As with everything else that the coalition is trying to do, we need to ensure that there is value for money, and that every pound we spend in a developing country gets to where it can make the maximum difference to the real people, and not to corrupt politicians.

Rwanda’s President has a fantastic vision of what he wants his country to be like, and it is possible to see the difference that he has made, year on year. It is a clean country that is improving its environment day by day. In fact, it is the cleanest African country I have ever been to. Much of Kigali has pavements, which few other poor countries would even think of having. That is because the President has a vision of what he wants his country to achieve.

Uganda has oil, but I fear that the people will not benefit from any revenue. Oil could put the country into a completely new ball game, providing money for decent housing, sanitation, education and better health care. We have a duty to persuade Presidents in this situation to use their country’s natural resources to produce wealth to help everyone, not just themselves. I urge the Secretary of State to take this into account whenever he speaks to the leaders of such countries. Those Presidents should enable their countries to become self-sufficient through their own wealth, and give it to the people to spend rather than spending it on their own pet projects. That would create wealth-generating communities, and we would need to provide less aid, which in turn would enable us to help more people in other countries, rather than having to spread the aid too thinly.